August 19, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Author Topic: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development  (Read 166080 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #270 on: October 08, 2010, 01:09:20 AM »
My personal FM pick would be 6 more batt fp per side and 3 lances.

Did you ever answer on the Terminators?  Why is it only one use per game?

Here's a dumb answer: It was because nobody complained about it. You know what's worse? Everyone I ever talked to and played with (including both Bob and my son, who is a Chaos Deamon Prince in his own right) simply assumed it worked the same way for Chaos. I read the rules on p.45 of Armada again very closely. I always knew they were cheaper for Chaos than they were for Imps, but only when I re-read it today did I realize there's no restriction keeping Chaos from using it every turn!


I've played people from all over the United States and at least two other countries, and this has never come up before! I can assure you this was never intended by the designers, but Bob and I hashed it out- he was as surprised as I was! We have not yet spoken to Ray (another Chaos demigod if there ever was one), and we don't think the price should change, which means it will still be cheaper for Chaos to have them. However, we don't object to Imps getting to use it every turn as well. How does the List here feel about that?

So it was a big typo?  Chaos terminators were meant to be once per game only?  Why not just make the marine terminators exactly the same as Chaos currently is, officially?  It only even effects hit and run attacks, which don't come up too terribly often.  IIRC, it just lets you roll two dice and pick the highest for your HnR attack, in chaos, rather than, IIRC, the current extra one that marines get.

Yep- a big typo, one we missed when getting the Armada second edition through the press. We're not going to change either one, we're going to leave the Imp one as-is at 50 points, which is more expensive than the Chaos one but works a bit better and can't be used by as many ships, except that now it can be used every turn. At least, that's the proposal.

- Nate

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #271 on: October 08, 2010, 01:28:09 AM »
I like the upgrade options posted for the warsphere thus
And I agree with much of what you said that is why I am looking for "downgrade" options for 4-6hp spheres

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #272 on: October 08, 2010, 01:56:41 AM »
I like the upgrade options posted for the warsphere thus
And I agree with much of what you said that is why I am looking for "downgrade" options for 4-6hp spheres

It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

A downgraded Warsphere makes complete fluff sense. Heck, Ray in particular wants a downgraded Warsphere so bad, he can taste it! He and I tried to get GW to sell a model using the current kit but leaving out the outer ring shell, but there was no way for them to do it economically without making a new mold, which was out of the question. Because there's no kit for it, it HAS to be scratchbuilt, and we can't make legal a model that only experienced model builders can make.

"What about Roks and Space Hulks!" Yes, I know these are official models that can only be scratchbuilt. However, in all honestly my daughter can grab a pebble off the street, smear glue on it, drop it in my bitz bin, pull it out and call it a Rok. A Warsphere is nowhere near that simple to make and you know it!    :D   Nonetheless, I will bring it up with the HA's. I know Ray will like the idea a lot.

I am re-posting this in the Tau thread.

- Nate

 
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #273 on: October 08, 2010, 02:04:54 AM »
It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

- Nate

 

No new ship designs which can't be modelled right out of the box and yet you can't fix the TH-Shield issue on the SC which doesn't even need remodelling, just a change of stats.

I find that ironic.  ;D

P.S. What Titan?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 02:08:16 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #274 on: October 08, 2010, 02:37:14 AM »
It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

- Nate

 

No new ship designs which can't be modelled right out of the box and yet you can't fix the TH-Shield issue on the SC which doesn't even need remodelling, just a change of stats.

I find that ironic.  ;D

Admiral, PLEASE playtest this. Put bluntly, your idea will create a SM fleet that will get smashed by Chaos or Tau. Don’t think to yourself “fair and balanced” Chaos or Tau. Think “beardy munchkin 16-year old with deep pockets and no personality using all carriers and lances because it’s legal” Chaos or Tau. Your fix for this is to create a SC carrier. How about we do neither, thus we don’t break the SC and then fix it with yet another SC.   ;D

The “too many hardpoints” issue is not enough in and of itself to revise a baseline profile that has existed for nine years.

Quote

P.S. What Titan?
 

Warp Rift came out with a Nemesis fleet list that was pretty cool. A LOT of the ships on that list are cool but require some detailed scratchbuilding, but if I recall correctly, the Titan was merely an amped Gothic battlecruiser. I’m not saying “let’s make it official!” I’m merely saying that were we to do so, the model itself wouldn’t be an issue because any novice modeler could make one right out the box.

-   Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #275 on: October 08, 2010, 03:38:29 AM »
Admiral, PLEASE playtest this. Put bluntly, your idea will create a SM fleet that will get smashed by Chaos or Tau. Don’t think to yourself “fair and balanced” Chaos or Tau. Think “beardy munchkin 16-year old with deep pockets and no personality using all carriers and lances because it’s legal” Chaos or Tau. Your fix for this is to create a SC carrier. How about we do neither, thus we don’t break the SC and then fix it with yet another SC.   ;D

To put it bluntly as you say, SM ARE already getting smashed by Chaos and Tau with the existing SC set-up. This game is not about ordnance. This game is about direct fire weapons and 1 shield ain't enough against those two fleets you mention. I don't need ordnance with Chaos. Why? Chaos already has the lances to smash through SM's pitiful 1 shield stat.

I run this typical 1,500 point Chaos list:

1 Hades
3 Murders
1 Styx
2 Devs.

Yes, Lots of ordnance which mostly I point out are just doing anti-ordnance role. It's the lances which KILL however. 10 lances at 60 cm on Lock On with my Hades and Murders. Tell me the SC isn't going to brace against that much firepower? The lances of the Styx and Devs just doing support role and killing off the cripples. That's in existence NOW, Nate. I punish my opponent's SCs severely everytime with this list.

Now, while I have limited experience with Tau, the fact isTau already has enough ordnace to ignore shields that upping the SC's shields to 2 won't matter. While the SM will lose out a bit on the TH, the fact is they're still resilient fighters and the armor of the SM ships will help a lot in blunting the Tau ordnance attacks. The increase in Shields will matter against the tau's Direct Fire weapons however which are themselves dangerous.

Are you really playing the same SM fleet that everyone is playing? What's a vanilla TH going to do? Why crit an opponent. How is that helpful? Most of my TH go to anti-ordnance roles which they do quite well, thank you but THs themselves do not directly help an SM fleet survive direct fire.

Secondly, what's wrong with the carrier fix? It's fluffy. It's easy to model right out of the box. Either:
a. You use the TONS of IN Launch Bays lying around BFG players bits box or
b. You just drill out the WB bays.

Either are not hard conversions to do.

The “too many hardpoints” issue is not enough in and of itself to revise a baseline profile that has existed for nine years.

Again, what's so hard about invoking a change in policy especially when one does not have to come out with a new model? Will GW or SG suffer a hit on their profits if you change the baseline stat? Will the players suddenly throw out their SCs because they are suddenly worthless (how adding one shield in exchange for a TH point makes the SC poorer is beyond me)?

The baseline profile has existed for 9 years and guess what? People are finding it lackluster.


Warp Rift came out with a Nemesis fleet list that was pretty cool. A LOT of the ships on that list are cool but require some detailed scratchbuilding, but if I recall correctly, the Titan was merely an amped Gothic battlecruiser. I’m not saying “let’s make it official!” I’m merely saying that were we to do so, the model itself wouldn’t be an issue because any novice modeler could make one right out the box.

-   Nate


Oh, that Titan. Just to give credit where credit is due, that design originally came from the defunct Blackstone Outpost site. Logical design but extremely overpowered. Much as an IN player, i would like to have it in my fleets, I'm afraid I'll have to say no to allowing it.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 03:47:48 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #276 on: October 08, 2010, 04:23:00 AM »
Here's another question I would like to ask: where did this idea that SM are supposed to be ordnance heavy come from anyway? Granted they should have more resilient ordnace. Why should they have enough ordnance to rival Tau (much less Chaos)?

Here's a more or less balanced list at 1,500 points.

Master of the Fleet
1 Battle Barge
7 Strike Cruisers.

Other players will add more escorts in lieu of 1 or 2 SCs most likely. But let's say the above is true. That fleet has 17 Thunderhawks effectively giving them 24-26 THs on the table. Meanwhile, my Chaos list only has 14 non-resilient ordnance. Even if we assume the THs are not resilient, how can SM be actually taking more attack craft ordnance than Chaos? Note that my Chaos list is balanced in terms of armament.

Of course, people can go with all Devs and/or Styx to increase the ordnance on the table. Say 7 Devs for 28 AC or 2 Styx' and 5 devs for 32. Then again, it's not going to be killing that much ships.  Such a fleet design for Chaos is not making use of it's main strength which is firepower. Also, the SM fleet can be comprised of 10 SCs and a Master of the Fleet and have 20 THs on the table for an effective 30.

A typical SM chapter only has 1000 men divided further into Companies of 100 mean and these Companies normally have escorts attending to them though some DO have SCs per Company. That's fine. The question is, Do they really need all those THs to drop those 100 mean into battle? Note that aside from THs, the SCs and BBs and most likely escorts also have drop pods. It just does not make sense fluff wise and design wise.

Now assuming we change the stats to 1 TH per SC. The same list will then have 10 THs available which is effectively having 15. That now would be more balanced against the balanced Chaos fleet I made. Against an ordnance heavy Chaos fleet, will be more problematic but since they can absorb the direct fire weapons more, then much more ships can go on the attack against the Chaos carriers.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #277 on: October 08, 2010, 05:12:44 AM »
Kraken is another model that can't be bought :)


Nate:  Why not just make the Terminators exactly like the current chaos ones?  I find it balanced, even more so in pure SM than in chaos.
Much simpler than an extra, special H&R.  Just an extra dice on teleport H&R attacks, pick the highest, 10 points.
Sounds perfect to me.  Restrict it to battlebarges if need be, though I wouldn't pay the points on an SC anyway, so I would leave it open.

Edit: With the change to H&R on reload ordnance and lockon, by that logic is there any hope for necron solar pulses not being effected by those?
It is afterall a weapon, though perhaps not one that would be rerolled.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 07:38:33 AM by lastspartacus »

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #278 on: October 08, 2010, 07:08:44 AM »
Hi Sigoroth! I already posted separately why the 1TH +1Shield rule for all SC’s is a bad idea. Here’s a direct paste of that response:

Quote
This is not simply a matter of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." SM’s in a pure fleet get thirteen capital ships and 29 launch bays total. That sounds like a lot, but we’re talking about close to 3,000 points of ships here, the upper limit SM’s can reasonably field by themselves. Now compare that to a 3,000-point Chaos or Tau fleet; suddenly 29 launch bays doesn’t sound like so much, even if they are resilient. Heck, even Eldar can get more than 40 launch bays for 3,000 points, and they HAVE resilient fighters!

Now let’s look at making an SC’s base profile 1 T-hawk for +1 shield. Now the maximum number of launch bays in a 3,000-point pure SM fleet is 19. You honestly believe that’s worth each SC getting an extra shield? They would get whacked! Of course we could solve this by creating a “carrier SC,” but then all we did was break something and then create something to fix what we broke.

The reason why the SC should be reduced to a 1 TH bay is not for balance reasons, it is for model reasons. When converting regular launch bays to be able to fit Thunderhawks (such as for chaos marines with THs or a SM VBB) we have the 2 regular AC = 1 TH conversion formula. I don't believe this to be accurate of course, but I do believe 1 TH (with SM rules) is worth more than than 1 regular AC, roughly 1.5 I'd say. So I don't think that the prow of the SC is worth 3 regular AC in size. Similarly, I don't think that it is worth two thirds of the battlebarge's bay either. So this should be reduced to fit the SM models better (particularly if you're using the FW strike cruiser). Having said that, there is no reason why SMs shouldn't have access to more AC, as you've pointed out. This is where the launch bay variant comes in.

Now, you call this breaking something and then fixing it. I call it giving parity between models and rules. You think that this is unnecessary, I think that this would not only solve an annoying problem of representation, but it would also solve another problem of the SM fleet. One of variety. Having a launch bay variant and a torpedo variant would give SM admirals the customisation they have always desired.

Quite apart from this is the issue of the 2nd shield. The SC just needs one, flat out. They get slaughtered in all shooting contests. Consider an 8 hit 2 shield cruiser that takes 3 damage a turn vs a 6 hit 1 shield SC that receives the same. Massive difference. So this is a separate issue to reducing the TH capacity and should be implemented regardless of whether or not the latter comes to pass. Of course, an extra shield will increase the cost of the SC. Losing a TH will decrease the cost. If they both occur at the same time then the cost of the base SC can remain the same.

So, what do SM players want? 1) a more competitive and survivable fleet and 2) some variety while 3) remaining true to the background. The proposal I and others have put forward checks all these boxes. WITHOUT breaking a core mechanic of the game no less.


You disagree they should be allowed to combine firepower. It’s okay that you disagree, and I do understand why you feel how you do. However, in my opinion I don’t think your solution set is viable. I don’t believe the entire SM fleet as-is should be relegated to assaulting planets and breaking defenses. Nobody is ever going to play with a fleet that can’t reasonably fight any other fleet. I also don’t believe the fix for this should be “just give Orks and Space Marines more firepower.” Just because it’s shooty, we by direction cannot and will not arbitrarily take the profiles for every Ork and Space Marine ship in the game back to the drawing board when the much simpler fix is to simply allow these fleets to combine fire.

I am all about making the ships and fleets as fluff-true as possible, but we will not break their playability or re-write the profiles of entire fleets people have been using for almost a decade merely for the sake of how fluff is interpreted.

-   Nate

You CAN change the profiles of a fleet that people have been playing for a decade. In fact you SHOULD. They should not have been allowed to go this long without change in the first place, and saying that they've remained the same this long is no reason not to change them now. Furthermore, you should NOT make changes that are contrary to the fluff, such as introducing lances to the SMs and improving gunnery efficiency of the Orks, least of all when to do so would be to change a core mechanic of the game! I also take issue with the idea that these changes to profiles would be "arbitrary". In fact, it is far more arbitrary to allow simultaneous fire, since this is an abstract change that comes at the expense of character. A tangible and characterful increase in firepower for the Orks is anything but arbitrary.

If you have the least bit of concern for the fluff then you should implement the proposed changes that I and others have suggested in draft format and see if this appeals to SM players and their opponents. Only if the fluffy fix is indescribably insufficient should you even think about considering to contemplate the possibility of deliberating on a non-fluffy fix.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #279 on: October 08, 2010, 07:12:38 AM »
@ Sigoroth, I disagree with you on the Orks. They are good at shooting. Lotsa dakka dakka. So the simultaneous change is a real good one in my opinion.

No, they're not good at it, they just do a lot of it. So when making a change to improve their overall gunnery should they be more efficient (ie, increased ballistic skill) or have more firepower (ie, more dakka)?

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #280 on: October 08, 2010, 08:12:37 AM »
Sig, are you arguing at simul fire on a ship, or a squadron?  I'm a bit confused, got lost in the pages I miss between posts.

Edit:  I of course am in the 'marines should be able to compete against other fleets' camp.  Sure, let em be better at certain scenarios than others, and not quite on par point for point with an Imperial ship, before you factor in the crew bonuses.  But space marine ships actually have alot of responsibilities to accomplish on their own besides battering aside defence emplacements. 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 08:21:24 AM by lastspartacus »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #281 on: October 08, 2010, 08:19:14 AM »
Quote
No, they're not good at it, they just do a lot of it. So when making a change to improve their overall gunnery should they be more efficient (ie, increased ballistic skill) or have more firepower (ie, more dakka)?
Hey Sigoroth,
I think you approach this the wrong way. Neither Heavy Gunz or Weapon Batteries are improved on the Orks. It is just a case of : which button does an Ork push first: 'battery or heavy'? The answer is: "at the same moment".

Also, upgunning heavy gunz and getting a right shift through blastmarkers or no upgunning and no right shift. In the end the same result.


I agree on your Space Marine view. And the Admiral's view.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #282 on: October 08, 2010, 08:23:24 AM »
What exactly are you saying about heavy gunz horizon?  From what I understand, they are much maligned for their no-column-shift.
They need something, it seems, as at that range, Ork thinking is usually 'why not just board'?
Orks suffer from a conflict of interests, as a fleet.  Lots of close range options.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #283 on: October 08, 2010, 10:07:48 PM »
We should create another thread for Orks.  ;D In the meantime, let's stick to SM here. The Orks concern is another issue with me. To answer here though, Orks should have more dakka but not very good at hitting. Lots and lots and lots of dakka. That's my personal view. Now let's back to the regular SM station.  :)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development
« Reply #284 on: October 09, 2010, 01:54:50 AM »
Quote
No, they're not good at it, they just do a lot of it. So when making a change to improve their overall gunnery should they be more efficient (ie, increased ballistic skill) or have more firepower (ie, more dakka)?
Hey Sigoroth,
I think you approach this the wrong way. Neither Heavy Gunz or Weapon Batteries are improved on the Orks. It is just a case of : which button does an Ork push first: 'battery or heavy'? The answer is: "at the same moment".

Also, upgunning heavy gunz and getting a right shift through blastmarkers or no upgunning and no right shift. In the end the same result.


I agree on your Space Marine view. And the Admiral's view.

In BFG there is no simultaneity between weapon systems. You have to choose your order of attack. This has implications for the number of brace opportunities the target has and the ability of the firing ship to redirect fire. This, combined with line of fire BM interference, provides the best tactical arrangement. This core mechanic should not be broken. You could put up an argument for simultaneity of fire, but then again, you could do so for simultaneity of movement or, indeed, of player turns. Of course, I think that it is reasonable to assume that different weapon systems that operate in radically different ways would require different firing solutions and therefore could not just be fired at the same time. The simple fact of the matter is that the 2 fleets most affected by the sequential nature of fire are SMs and Orks, making their fire inefficient. This is characterful in both cases.

So changing a core mechanic of the game to make SM and Ork fire more efficient is a terrible idea. Core mechanic change = bad. Unfluffy balance fix = bad. Therefore proposed change = bad. Fixing SM balance issues by giving more variety and making them tougher = good. Fixing Ork balance problems with more firepower = characterful = good.